Imperium: Nerone

and not only. a film who creates one of many Nerone's portraits. not extraordinary but decent. only sin - the fear of Hans Matheson to explore new solutions for create his role more than copy of other emperor's representations. but he does a beautiful role, not real profound but honest, powerful and realistic. like many historical movies, the accuracy is not the best point and, in many scenes, Nerone seems be only sketch. but it is a good choice for an evening after work day, as mixture of history and crumbs of fairy tale, remembering Quo Vadis and the representation of the Roman emperor in different novels and in cinema. sure, the stereotypes are not the inspired ingredients and the story of Nerone could be more a story "ad usum Delphini" but the result is far to be bad.

As a ravenous devourer of all films set in the ancient world, but especially the Roman ones, as soon as I found out this and "Augustus" are part of a larger programme, I had to uncover the remaining pieces to be filmed. As culled from the production company website, they are as follows:

Miniseries completed: Augusto/Augustus and Nerone/Nero Miniseries in production: San Pietro/Saint Peter, Pompei/Pompeii, Costantino/Constantine and La Caduta dell'Impero/The fall of the empire.

So it would appear that the series will not focus only on 'imperium' per se, that is emperors and all that. But instead, it will feature some historical events and important characters peripheral to Rome proper (in this case, St. Peter). Much as I don't like the Christian flicks, one cannot look at all Rome's history and shrug it off. But, for my part, I look forward to the Constantine piece. TThe man hasn't been 'filmed' much and I cannot locate the one that I know of on DVD anywhere.

"Imperium Nero" is the second movie of the series of six productions named "Imperium". I have already unfavorably commented the first one: "Imperium Augustus". This second TV movie produced and broadcast last weekend by the Italian state owned network has the same defects. In addition contains a considerable number of historical errors. Some examples: Nero is a child and Agrippina calls him: "Nero, Nero". At that time is name was Claudius. He was named Nero after his adoption. Nero did not meet Acte when he was young as in the movie but after his marriage with Octavia and his nomination to Emperor. When becoming Emperor his sons where not adults: Britannicus is one month old and Octavia one year old. And many many more. If you are fond of ancient roman history you can find yourselves other examples. "Imperium" series will continue with four more movies : "Titus", "Marcus Aurelius","Costantinus" and"The Fall of the Roman Empire". Finally!

This movie was good. It was both entertaining (although long at 3 hours) and refreshing.

I have seen a lot of movies on the Roman Empire, including Augustus (to which I also found great). Although I only have mild university level knowledge on the history of the Roman Republic and Empire, I know very little of Nero, so I watch Nero from an ignorant point of view.

Gladiator had little historical background yet was hailed and given high ratings and great reviews. Although that is a story, one would assume Nero (as well as Augustus) to be an accurate day-to-day recount of the lives of these Emperors. True, there are some parts that seem out-of-date, far-fetched, and alienated from what seems to be 'truth', but you can't hide that this is a story.

I found huge gaps in Augustus, Rome, and Julius Caesar, but I loved every second of them, and as far as I'm concerned, Imperium: Nero is better than Augustus (even though I studied him for quite some time).

If you haven't seen Nero, it's a good movie, and a great night at home with some ice cream, or popcorn! Most of the reviewers cast "hog-wash", but use Historical Inaccuracies as their main attack, then again, "Gladiator" wasn't the most historically accurate film ever made either.

6.7/10

"Nero" as the title of the movie is in Germany is a another attempt to show one of the most interesting Roman emperors, Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, better known as Nero. Although this attempt at least tried to show a more historic accurate Nero than the amusing but completely fictitious Nero Peter Ustinov played in "Quo Vadis!" it still is a major failure. And to those IMDb-commentators who still believe that Sueton and Tacitus propaganda is true, please read a book about Nero that was published less than 20 years ago. Nero did NOT burn Rome, this is proved! He did not murder Britannicus. He did not torture, kill and maim for pleasure, he was the first emperor who BANNED the gladiator fights. The movie still shows a lot of mistakes, errors and is by the way made in a really cheap style, especially the sets were cheap and unconvincing, the palace looking like some villa, the city itself looked like..well like a cheap set. The acting was between good and sub-par, the music nearly insignificant and the movie soon deteriorated after Nero became emperor to a rushed, bad edited mess without any clear narrative structure. So there still is the potential for an epic biography of Nero that shows the true Nero, who was one of the best emperors who ruled Rome, despite the lies of Sueton et al.